Wikipedia:Featured article review/Jupiter/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC) [1].

Jupiter[edit]

Notified: RJHall, Kwamikagami, WP Astronomy, WP Solar System, talk page notification 2020-11-19

Review section[edit]

This is a 2007 promotion that has not been maintained to standard. There has been an Update needed tag since May 2020, and there has been no response to the talk page notification from 19 November 2020 or the expanded list of items needing attention I placed a week ago. The original author is retired and has not edited in six years. Issues include outdated and uncited text, and some prose and MOS problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Femkemilene, maybe you could tackle this like you did for Earth? LittleJerry (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look, but it's too much work in an area that doesn't give me as much motivation as other regions of Wikipedia. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rod57 maybe you could update the internal section. LittleJerry (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an update tag on the "Internal structure" section
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an update tag on the "Juno mission" section
Updated. LittleJerry (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged dated: The temperature at the core boundary is estimated to be 36,000 K (35,700 °C; 64,300 °F) and the interior pressure is roughly 3,000–4,500 GPa.[49][These estimates are out of date]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has the issue in the section just above this one been resolved?
  • There are MOS:SANDWICH and image layout problems everywhere. If knowledgeable editors will delete those that are least useful (decorative), I am willing to go through and improve the layout. There are considerable images here that are not aiding our understanding of the topic; by reducing those, we can get a better layout on the ones that stay.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now? LittleJerry (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are considerable duplicate links. See WP:OVERLINK, but some may be deemed necessary and retained (editor discretion). Installing this script will add an item to your toolbox that shows duplicate links in red: User:Evad37/duplinks-alt
  • External links probably could benefit from a trim, per WP:ELNO. FAs are supposed to be comprehensive, meaning there should be little in EL that can't be covered in the article. Ditto for Further reading ... are they all necessary? Do they add something to the article that we can't cover in a comprehensive article?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does See also need trimming? That is, why aren't those worked in to the article (in instances where they can be)?
Trimmed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed???? LittleJerry (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is easy to spot sporadic, uncited text. Samples in the "Moons" and "Interaction with the Solar System" sections. The entire article should be scanned for uncited or outdated text.
  • The "Mythology" section looks like a collection of stuffy, one-sentence paragraph trivia; should be rationalized to paragraphs.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an eye out for WP:CITATION OVERKILL and remove the unnecessary, sample, Interactions between charged particles generated from Io and the planet's strong magnetic field likely resulted in redistribution of heat flow, forming the Spot.[87][88][89][90]
Fixed some. LittleJerry (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done for now, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The infobox is an unmitigated nightmare, taking over a huge part of the article (and everything in it needs to be checked to see if the content is included in the article, and cited). That infobox needs reformatting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Analogs" section is a list that should be prosified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the major issues have been dealt with. Overlinking is not enough to delist it and the infobox is just like the other planet articles. LittleJerry (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or delist are not declared during the FAR phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC; there is no possibility I can clean up the faulty prose in this article, so I have not checked other issues. Sample para: “Before the discoveries of the Voyager missions, Jupiter's moons were arranged neatly into four groups of four, based on commonality of their orbital elements. Since then, the large number of small outer moons discovered has complicated this picture. Jupiter's moons are currently thought do be divided into several different groups, although there are several moons which are not part of any group.” The Voyager seems to have rearranged the moons. And “Hot Jupitiers are usually tidally locked,“ ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Listed this as a WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors Request. LittleJerry (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include prose and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist this article is now worse than it was when it appeared at FAR. The best way forward is to give this article a fresh start with a new FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strike and rephrase per conversation with LittleJerry on my talk. I don't know if the problems are now worse than before, but now that the MOS issues have been cleaned up (perhaps, I have not re-checked), it is apparent that the prose issues in this article are well beyond what we should expect a copyeditor to be able to clean up. Without fresh and complete engagement by content experts to revise the entire article, I don't think this is doable within the scope of a FAR. The prose is atrocious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep if the Copyeditors Guild gets to this. I think the other major issues have been dealt with. LittleJerry (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, Chidgk1 did a copyedit of the article. I know you said that a copyedit wouldn't be enough, but another look wouldn't hurt. LittleJerry (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, LittleJerry; I will look when I have a free moment. Which may not be soon :) Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, LittleJerry, this is why I say we need a content expert rather than a copyeditor to sort the prose. Perhaps it's just me.
  • Do you know what this means, as it relates to Voyager? Am I just not understanding it because I lack the background? "Before the discoveries of the Voyager missions, Jupiter's moons were classified into four groups of four, based on commonality of their orbital elements. Since then, the large number of small outer moons discovered has complicated this picture. Jupiter's moons are currently divided into several different groups, although there are several moons which are not part of any group." I don't know how to translate that to meaningful English. ::*Do you know what a "captured asteroid" is or how to fix that?
A captured asteroid is an asteroid that ended up in the planet's orbit. LittleJerry (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In term of copyediting to FA standards, we have in the "Interaction with the Solar System" section, two subsequent paras starting with "Along with ... " vary the prose.
  • How are all of these related, and how can one split up the sentence? "The orbits of most of the system's planets lie closer to Jupiter's orbital plane than the Sun's equatorial plane (Mercury is the only planet that is closer to the Sun's equator in orbital tilt), the Kirkwood gaps in the asteroid belt are mostly caused by Jupiter, and the planet may have been responsible for the Late Heavy Bombardment of the inner Solar System's history."
  • "Due to the magnitude of Jupiter's mass" really? Due to Jupiter's mass ? This is only from looking at one very small section; a copyeditor can do their best here, but a content expert needs to write this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
pinging Chidgk1, Devonian Wombat and Christophe1946. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The infobox is an unmitigated nightmare ... the prose issues in this article are well beyond what we should expect a copyeditor to be able to clean up". How can I possibly resist? I shall endeavour to sort out the prose. It may take a week or two. I mean, could I possibly make it worse? I shall not be adding any citations. As ever with my copy editing, I shall likely be bold - if you don't like something or don't understand why I have done it, either just revert or feel free to query me. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, Gog the Mild; the problem is, there is no one to revert or check you, as no one from WP Astronomy or WP Solar System has shown up, and there are problems where the prose needs to be made intelligible and checked for source-to-text accuracy ... you are on your own !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I had kinda worked that out. I'll see what I can do. I really am not at all sure that it is salvageable, but it may be; and for a copy editor it looks like a target-rich environment. :-) This is Voyager 1, signing off as I fade into the vacuumous depths. I shall write if I find work. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I've heard, the planet infoboxes were all standardized at some point. So I would advise not altering it (unless someone wants to get a bunch of astronomy folks to create a new standardized planet infobox design, that is), large as it may be. Aza24 (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies to all, but it doesn't look as if I will get round to this one. My new roles as a FAC coordinator and TFA blurb coordinator are more time consuming than I had anticipated, and combined with other Wiki-activities mean that I have bitten off more than I can chew. Apologies again, but I am standing back from this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Formation and migration" section looks unbalanced, if it's true that "the likelihood that the grand tack actually occurred in the solar nebula is very low"; it is being given undue weight. Otherwise the prose doesn't look too bad to me. (t · c) buidhe 18:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No idea where to go next: no astronomy editors weighing in to tell us if the article is any good = delist by default? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hog Farm

I've been asked to give this a review, so I'll be looking through this.

  • The lead says that it may have a rocky core, but rocks aren't mentioned in the section about the core at all.

Formation and migration

  • the bit about the grand tack hypothesis states that Jupiter was moving inward from the outer solar system, but then later we're told "Jupiter moving out of the inner Solar System would have allowed the formation of inner planets, including Earth"
  • It's assumed that readers know what a gas giant is
  • Estimates of the age of Jupiter are never explicitly stated.
  • So we described the grand tack in a manner that suggest that it probably happened, and then say "Moreover, the likelihood that the grand tack actually occurred in the solar nebula is very low".
  • " In fact, some models predict the formation of Jupiter's analogues whose properties are close to those of the planet at the current epoch" - Unclear to a nonexpert what Jupiter's analogues are. Also, we seem to be using both analogues and analogs in different points in the article.

Composition

  • "Helium is also depleted to about 80% of the Sun's helium composition" - So is Jupiter itself depleting helium? It's unclear why this helium is depleted and what exactly this signifies.
  • "and relatively more ices and are thus" - As an aside, I was taught in elementary school that these ices were literal water ice, when apparently it's a name for a fancy class of volatiles.

Mass and size

  • "When it was first formed, Jupiter was much hotter and was about twice its current diameter." - Cited to a source from 1974. Given the advances in outer space knowledge since 1974, this source seems a bit dated to be supporting a theory.

Internal structure

  • "Jupiter was expected to either consist of a dense core, a surrounding layer of liquid metallic hydrogen (with some helium) extending outward to about 78% of the radius of the planet,[52] and an outer atmosphere consisting predominantly of molecular hydrogen,[54] or perhaps to have no core at all, consisting instead of denser and denser fluid (predominantly molecular and metallic hydrogen) all the way to the center, depending on whether the planet accreted first as a solid body or collapsed directly from the gaseous protoplanetary disk." - This is a hecking long sentence. Additionally, who thought this, when was this thought, and what was the rationale behind this thought?

Cloud layers

  • "These are sub-divided into lighter-hued zones and darker belts" - Surely this fails MOS:BADITALICS?
  • " The zones have been observed to vary in width, color and intensity from year to year, but they have remained sufficiently stable for scientists to name them" - We got a source more recent than the 1980s for this? Again, stuff from the 70s and 80s is probably dated for astrophysics stuff
  • The lead says the Great Red Spot has been known since the 17th century, while the body says that the mention in the 1600s source is not certain.
  • If the planetary atmosphere is 5,000 km, and the cloud layer is only 50 km, then what is the other 4,950 km?
  • The Shoemaker-Levy impact should probably be described in the Impacts section, there's currently only a passing mention in the Galileo probe section and an image caption

Delist - I only made it about a quarter of the way through before giving up. Confusing and sometimes contradictory prose, dated sources, missing or unclear information. This needs a very heavy workover by someone familiar with astronomy and a new FAC. This isn't fixable with non-expert attention in a FAR. Hog Farm Talk 16:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist, another stellar review from the Bacon. There is a real issue here that not a single astronomy editor has weighed in to help restore this FA, and there are at least a dozen astronomy FAs that are in similar shape. A sad state of affairs, but as I mentioned earlier, this cannot be corrected via a copyedit. We need content experts on board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is only a partial review. I'm willing to go through the rest of the article if a content expert shows up, but I'm seeing very big flaws so far. The copy edits only masked the surface level of these problems. Hog Farm Talk 17:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I agree that this article needs significant input by a content expert, that is willing to put in considerable effort. (There is a number of old FAs on astronomical objects that have fallen into obvious disrepair, for instance Titan (moon), that does not need an expert to point out the overabundance of images. If Jupiter could not attract an astronomy editor, I worry about the rest of the articles. But I digress.)
    The flyby table is mostly unsourced, the Galilean moons' table is unsourced, stubby sentences, pages needed, the Mythology section looks very out of place between two science-y sections, dated sources. Above all this, I agree with Hog that the article is not accessible; it takes for granted that the reader is well-versed in the subject. Needs work. RetiredDuke (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Jupiter/archive1&oldid=1002344711"